similar to: Debug Info is not generated for extern variables .

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "Debug Info is not generated for extern variables ."

2019 May 17
2
Debug Info is not generated for extern variables .
I think emitting "testExt" as an external declaration (what gcc does) doesn't do much for the debugger; being a declaration, it has no location, and so you can't do things like examine its value, unless you find the symbol in the defining CU first. I don't see a real "compatibility with gcc" argument here. Is there some behavior of some consumer that is affected
2015 May 27
0
[LLVMdev] GCC compatibility code coverage issue .
Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> writes: > Hi Justin , > > Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going > forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the > -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov > format . Going forward, the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping (which I'll refer to as
2020 Sep 01
4
Filename's in DIBuileder
Try using $PWD/test.cpp on the clang command line. I am seeing the duplicate DIFile entries, but not yet able to reproduce a .debug_line section with multiple directory entries. --paulr From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Tomar, Sourabh Singh via llvm-dev Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:07 PM To: Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com>; cfe-dev at
2017 May 30
2
Communication between Clang Sema and the Clang Codegen...
Hi All, We have populated info in the Clang Sema i.e class Sema (include/clang/Sema/Sema.h) and like to propagate the same to Clang Codegen . Currently we are propagating through ASTContext ,where we have duplicating fields info and operation in the Sema and ASTContext . Any better way of doing the same ? Thank you ~Umesh
2015 Apr 28
4
[LLVMdev] GCC compatibility code coverage issue .
Hi All, We trying to use clang+llvm to generate the gcc coverage format as clang version 3.6.0 $clang --coverage -Xclang -coverage-cfg-checksum -Xclang -coverage-no-function-names-in-data -Xclang -coverage-version='407*' test.c $a.out $llvm-cov gcov test.gcda Unexpected version: *704. Invalid .gcno File! Debugging the above cause ,But any hints from experts here ,will help a lot
2018 Jul 20
3
O2 Aggressive Optimization by Clang
Edited the Subject. On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All , > > We are looking at the C sample i.e > > extern int i,j; > > int test() > { > while(1) > { i++; > j=20; > } > return 0; > } > > command used :(clang version 3.8.0-2ubuntu4 (tags/RELEASE_380/final) > ) > clang
2013 Nov 13
2
[LLVMdev] SchedMachineModel clarifications
Dear Andrew and the Group, I’m trying come up with a SchedMachineModel for the AMD bulldozer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_(microarchitecture). The model is not exist for the same .Please correct me if am i wrong here. I was going through your reference @ https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Target/TargetSchedule.td . But I couldn’t model some of the
2016 May 30
7
[cfe-dev] How to debug if LTO generate wrong code?
> On May 29, 2016, at 5:44 PM, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > > (And I doubt the GNU linker supports LTO with LLVM). > [Steven]: I’ve pushed GNU Binutils ld to support LLVM gold plugin, see detail in this bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20070 <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20070>. The new GNU ld linker works well with
2013 Nov 21
0
[LLVMdev] SchedMachineModel clarifications
Dear All, Attached files is related to the changes made to add the Schedmodel for a AMD bulldozer target, Please note that , the model is incomplete but has some of the valuables features implemented. Request to the group or someone from AMD for the comments on the implementation. Thanks ~umesh On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com>wrote: >
2013 Oct 15
1
[LLVMdev] Unwanted push/pop on Cortex-M.
Hi andrea, R11 treated as frame pointer at arm backend , which is fixed again . Thanks Umesh On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Andrea Mucignat <andrea at nestlabs.com> wrote: > Umesh, > Makes some sort of sense to me, OTOH: > If instead of choosing r11 as a "dummy" to align the stack we had chosen some other register in the range r0-r7 then we could have emitted the PUSH
2012 May 14
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [SafeCode] Unable to build the LLVM from trunk
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 5/14/12 4:32 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote: > > Hi All , > > Was trying to build the LLVM src from > http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_30 ,But unable to > build the same and clang poped up with below error . > > > First, it sounds like you're building LLVM
2016 May 30
2
[cfe-dev] How to debug if LTO generate wrong code?
> On May 29, 2016, at 5:10 PM, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Mehdi, > GCC LTO seems support large code model in my side as below, if the code model is linker specific, does the GCC LTO use a special linker which is different from the one in GNU Binutils? I don't know anything about GCC. (And I doubt the GNU linker supports LTO with LLVM). > I’m a
2020 Jun 26
2
How do we disable the particular opt in llvm ?
Hi Everyone, How do we particular disable optimization in llvm with -O2 enabled? for example "Interprocedural Sparse Conditional Constant Propagation" Thank you ~Umesh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200626/ce248611/attachment.html>
2016 Jun 07
2
[cfe-dev] How to debug if LTO generate wrong code?
On 7 June 2016 at 10:54, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > I finally enable the clang LTO build with small code model and PIE, and my clang LTO Uefi firmware works now. Thank you! But I have one more issue on the clang normal build (without LTO) now. I find the small code model + "-fpie" build option will let clang generate some R_X86_64_GOTPCREL
2013 Nov 15
5
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Prevent clang from throwing the diagnostics twice.
Hi All, Clang pop up with the "error: invalid integral value" diagnostics twice ,when you enable the optimization through -O with a non-integer value i.e -O<non integer> as show below $ clang -Of -S test.c error: invalid integral value 'f' in '-Of' error: invalid integral value 'f' in '-Of' Attached patch fix the issue as $ clang -Of -S
2012 Feb 02
3
[LLVMdev] Why extra 4 bytes on stack ???
Hi There , Again ,I'm newbie to LLVM and please pardon me ..if you guys feel that ,the below question is very basic :) Here i go ,compiled the below sample with clang i.e *clang enum.c -S -emit-llvm* and there respective file are $ cat enum.c int main() { enum type{one=1,two,three} s; s = one; return s; } $ cat enum.s ; ModuleID = 'enum.c' target datalayout =
2013 Oct 15
2
[LLVMdev] Unwanted push/pop on Cortex-M.
Hi Andrea, That is because the LR is the fixed register as per the http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ihi0042e/IHI0042E_aapcs.pdf and out_char() function is not the leaf function ,Hence compiler tends to save and restore the LR and the save and restore of register r11 is to align stack for 8 bytes as per ARM EABI. Thanks ~Umesh On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Umesh Kalappa
2020 Feb 10
3
atomic ops are optimized with incorrect semantics .
Hi All, With the "https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/yBYTrd" case . the atomic is converted to non atomic ops for x86 like from xchg dword ptr [100], eax to mov dword ptr [100], 1 the pass is responsible for this tranformation was instCombine i.e InstCombiner::visitAtomicRMWInst which converts the IR like %0 = atomicrmw xchg i32* inttoptr (i64 100 to i32*), i32 1 monotonic to store
2016 May 05
2
Disable ARM specific pass.
Hi Guys , How do i disable the specific pass "ARMAllocLoadStoreOpt - Post- register allocation pass" from the clang driver , any driver options to achieve the same ? Thank you ~Umesh
2016 May 31
2
[cfe-dev] How to debug if LTO generate wrong code?
On 31 May 2016 at 01:08, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Mehdi, > What's the default code model for x86_64 Mac OS X App? Andrew showed me some example code of Mac OS X App as below, which looks to use the small code model but can run at >4GB high address. Small, but PIC. > For example if you read a global like this the compiler will generate this code.